JUDGMENT : Rekha Dixit, J. 1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment dated 31 January, 1983 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in State of U.P. Vs. Amir Singh and Others, the Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-accused Amir Singh and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., accused Kashmir Singh and Santokh Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. respectively. 2. The appellant-accused no.2 Kashmir Singh, son of Santosh Singh, died due to illness on 12 February, 2008 and appellant-accused no.3 Santokh alias Santosh Singh son of Harnam Singh died in an accident on 12 January, 1999, as per the report submitted by C.J.M. Rampur dated 01.12.2016 in pursuance of report of Police Station-Milakpur, District-Rampur dated 28.09.2016 which is on record and has been received by the Registrar General in compliance of this Court order dated 29.11.2016, through FAX on 02.12.2016 and it further appears from the police report of the Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly dated 14.10.2016 an original copy of which has also been supplied by the learned A.G.A., Vikas Sahai is also on record, according to which also, the said two appellants have died. Therefore, the appeal against appellant no.2 Kashmir Singh and appellant no.3 Santokh alias Santosh Singh stands abated, accordingly. 3. Now, we proceed with the appeal of appellant no.1 Amir Singh. 4. Narrated concisely, prosecution case against the appellant is that on the day of occurrence, i.e., on 12 August, 1981, Jagir Singh (P.W. 1) along with his brother Jogendra Singh (P.W. 2) was on his way to attend a criminal case against the sons of Santokh alias Santosh Singh in Bareilly Court. The deceased Nishan Singh was accompanying them to fetch labour for his fields from village Sheesham Kheda. When they reached near the brick kiln of Abdul Rehman at about 07:15 a.m., accused Amir Singh armed with rifle, Kashmir Singh and one Fauji, brother of Harpal Singh alias Dayal Singh armed with 12 bore gun and Santokh Singh armed with sword reached there. 5. When they reached near the brick kiln of Abdul Rehman at about 07:15 a.m., accused Amir Singh armed with rifle, Kashmir Singh and one Fauji, brother of Harpal Singh alias Dayal Singh armed with 12 bore gun and Santokh Singh armed with sword reached there. 5. The accused pressurised them for compromise in the said criminal case to which they agreed also but, subsequently, Amir Singh fired on Nishan Singh with his rifle. Jagir Singh and joginder Singh fled away but they could hear another bullet shot which was fired again on the person of Nishan Singh which they could also see while looking back side. The injured Nishan Singh fell down where Santokh Singh inflicted one or two blows from the sword. The other accused were firing on Jagir Singh and Joginder Singh due to which Joginder Singh sustained injuries. They raised alarm on which the witnesses Jaswant Singh and Lakhan Singh reached the spot but the accused fled away and Nishan Singh was dead on spot. 6. The informant Jagir Singh, his brother injured Joginder Singh, Bahadur Singh and Saroop Singh proceeded from there to police station leaving several villagers near the dead body. The F.I.R. was lodged and Joginder Singh was sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Bareilly where he was examined by Dr. A. P. Singh (P.W.-8), Exhibit Ka-12 injury report is as follows:- (i) Lacerated wound size 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm at the root of right upper central incisor tooth upper right I and II incisor tooth broken from the root and bleed on tough. (ii) Lacerated wound ½ cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the inner aspect of upper lip in median plan. (iii) Lacerated wound (gun shot) size ½ cm x ½ cm merprohed on the right face of zygamative and and clotted blood, margins are inverted. No tattooing or blackening. (iv) Lacerated wound (gun shot) size ¾ cm x ½ cm x merprohed on the back back of left shoulder margin are inverted no tattooing or blackening. (v) Two lacerated (gun shot) wounds size ½ cm x ½ cm x 4 merprohed on the left side of back 6 cm about 10 cm inward to the medial border of left scapula. No margin are inverted no tattooing or blackening. (v) Two lacerated (gun shot) wounds size ½ cm x ½ cm x 4 merprohed on the left side of back 6 cm about 10 cm inward to the medial border of left scapula. No margin are inverted no tattooing or blackening. (vi) Lacerated wound (gun shot) ½ cm x ½ cm x merprohed on the right arm 14 cm below the right shoulder margin are inverted no tattooing or blackening. 7. The dead body of the Nishan Singh was sent for post mortem where he was examined by Dr. K. P. Singh (P.W.-6), Exhibit Ka-11 is post mortem report, in which ante mortem injuries are as follows:- (i) A gun shot wound of entry 2 ½ cm in diameter x skull cavity deep on the left side face 5 cm below the outer end of the left eye brow & 6.5 cm outer (L) to the middle line, with fracture of the mandible into pieces & the skull bones which are coming out of the wound no.2 in 5-6 pieces (5 was intact & all was free & adherent to the skin flap of the skull) scorching & blackening present said about the wound. (ii) A lacerated wound 8 cm x 7 cm x scull cavity deep on the right side skull stating from the middle of the right eye brow & the adjacent parts of the outer aspect of the eye brow (R) -communicating with injury no.1 & the whole skull bones are fractured into pieces – 12 in number & same pieces of bones in wound of exit (a). (iii) A gun shot wound of entry 2 ½ cm is diameter x chest cavity deep on the frontal aspect of the left shoulder joint 3 cm below the top of the left shoulder joint with the fracture of the underlying bones (ribs) blackening & scorching present said about the wound. (iv) A gun shot wound of exit 1 cm in diameter x chest cavity deep on the right side back 25 cm below the top of the right shoulder region & 17 cm outer (R) to the mid line contusion & palpable pallets 5 in number in an area of 10 cm x 8 cm just below the wound of exit. This wound is communicating to injury no.3, direction of the injury no.3 is inward & outward, backward and downward, five larger size of pellets were recovered from the sub cutaneous region of the above injuries. (v) oblique incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm deep on the left side abdomen 22 cm below the left nipple & 12 cm outer (L) to mid line of the back aspect. (vi) An oblique transverse incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x skin deep on the left side back 20 cm above the left iliac crest & 10 cm outer (L) to the mid line. 8. The case was investigated by S.O. Virendra Singh (P.W.-4) who submitted charge-sheet Exhibit-Ka 10, after completing the investigation. 9. To bring home the guilt of the appellant no.1, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses, and four witnesses have been adduced in defence. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the appellant no.1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all of them and, also stated that, on his F.I.R. under Section 323, 324 I.P.C. against the complainant and his brother, a case was pending, hence, he has falsely been implicated in this case. The trial court held that the appellant no.1 committed the murder of deceased Nishan Singh and the prosecution established the circumstances, proving the appellant no.1 guilty, under Section 302, 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. respectively. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, the appellant no.1 preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case of blind murder and, in fact, nobody has seen the incident and has referred to the oral testimony of P.W. 5 Constable Satyabhan Singh and P.W. 3 Sub Inspector, Prem Pal Singh which affirms no mention of case "State Vs. Amir Singh" in panchayatnama, photolash, challanlash and also GD which shows that till 12:45 p.m. no report against the appellant was lodged. Had the report been lodged against the appellant no.1 prior to the GD entry no.25, certainly there would have been a mention of "State Vs. Amir Singh". Amir Singh" in panchayatnama, photolash, challanlash and also GD which shows that till 12:45 p.m. no report against the appellant was lodged. Had the report been lodged against the appellant no.1 prior to the GD entry no.25, certainly there would have been a mention of "State Vs. Amir Singh". Moreover, the delay in medical examination of P.W. 2 conducted at 06:10 p.m. whereas he was sent for medical in the morning itself as per GD entry no.20 has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. These doubtful circumstances question the veracity of the witnesses and authenticity of the prosecution case. 11. Further, it has been argued, that the ocular evidence in the present case is not in consonance with the medical evidence. As per averments of the F.I.R. Nishan Singh received one gun shot which was witnessed by the two eye-witnesses present there but there is no description of further injuries, whereas the post mortem report and the statement of the doctor reveals that the deceased Nishan Singh had received rifle injuries, 12 bore gun injuries along with incised wounds which may occur by the blow of sword. The eye-witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have stated rest of the injuries received on the body of Nishan Singh in their oral testimony which as per submission is improvement upon the case during the trial. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have also improved upon the motive behind the murder during trial deposing that the marriage of appellant’s sister was fixed with one Daljit Singh, who was murdered and the appellant no.1 suspected Nishan Singh for the said murder. It has also been argued that there was no occasion for Nishan Singh to accompany P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and no independent witnesses have been examined. 13. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court towards the defence that Nishan Singh, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were involved in smuggling activities on which count Nishan Singh might have been murdered and P.W. 2 received injuries, thereby indicating that it is P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who were involved in the murder of the Nishan Singh. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State, contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of appellant no.1 in the murder of deceased Nishan Singh in this case. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State, contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of appellant no.1 in the murder of deceased Nishan Singh in this case. The F.I.R. version has fully been supported by medical and ocular evidence, based on the said evidence, the court below rightly convicted the appellant and the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and material on record. 16. In the instant case deceased Nishan Singh received gun shot injuries on the day of incident, i.e., on 12.08.1981 and this fact is substantiated by the averments in First Information Report lodged, eyewitness count and medical evidence. Learned counsel for appellant no.1 has raised vital question regarding authenticity and truthfulness of eyewitness, i.e., P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. It has also been argued that the ocular evidence is in contradiction with the medical evidence, as such, the veracity of testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is highly questionable. He has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the following decision:- (i) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Moti Ram, 1990 Law Suit (SC) 281, Criminal Appeal No.517-523 of 1978 wherein it has been observed:- "Eye-witness stating that they were examined by the police just after the incident and sent for medical examination, by medical examination was held after 21 hours without any explanation for such delay, according to general dairy, the statement of the eye-witnesses was recorded on the next day after the incident. Under these circumstances, coupled with other circumstances regarding ambulatory and vasulating, the conviction held that evidence of eye witnesses was not reliable." (ii) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shanker, 1980 Law Suit (SC) 443, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 1974 wherein it has been observed:- "It is the function of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. It is only where the testimony of a witness is fainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the Court should discard his evidence in toto." (iii) In the case of Vadivelu Thevar Vs. It is only where the testimony of a witness is fainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the Court should discard his evidence in toto." (iii) In the case of Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, 1957 Law Suit (SC) 40, Criminal Appeal No.24, 25 of 1957 wherein it has been observed:- "Number of witnesses, ordinarily the Court cannot insist on plurality of witnesses for conviction for murder. It is the quality and not quantity of witness which matters." (iv) The same principles were also reiterated in the case of State Vs. Murli, 1955 Law Suit (All) 214, Criminal Government Appeal No.361 of 1953 and in the case of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors, 2013 Law Suit (SC) 774, Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2011 17. The trial court has accepted the testimony of P.W. 1 and the injured witness P.W. 2 as true and based the conviction of appellant no.1 on the same. The perusal of the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 makes it very apparent that the deceased died of gun shot and, it does not make a dent, that he had some more injuries which were not properly corroborated by the statement of eye-witnesses but this fact is to be taken into account that P.W. 2 himself was injured in the incident, and the injuries inflicted on the deceased, do corroborate with the averments of the F.I.R.. There appears no reason as to why P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 should not be treated as reliable witnesses. As far as the minor contradiction regarding transportation of the dead body of the deceased and entry in the general diary are concerned, even if, the submission of learned counsel be taken as true, it do not go to the extent of falsifying the factum of death of deceased and injuries of injured, which speak in volumes. 18. We may also make a reference to a decision in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhirendra Kumar, 1996 Law Suit (SC) 1798, Criminal Appeal No.283 of 1984, Ram Kumar Pande Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Law Suit (SC) 61, Criminal Appeal No.12 of 1972 and in the case of State of Punjab Vs. 18. We may also make a reference to a decision in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhirendra Kumar, 1996 Law Suit (SC) 1798, Criminal Appeal No.283 of 1984, Ram Kumar Pande Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Law Suit (SC) 61, Criminal Appeal No.12 of 1972 and in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Tarlok Singh, 1970 Law Suit (SC) 415, Criminal Appeal No.174 of 1969, in which the principle regarding delay and material omission in F.I.R. has been laid down but in the present case there appears no material omission in the F.I.R. or inordinate delay which may falsify or hit the prosecution case against the appellant no.1. 19. In the instant case the occurrence took place on 12 August, 1981 at 07:15 a.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged at 08:30 a.m. so it has nothing to do with the delay as such. The F.I.R. of the present case is thus prompt and it furnishes valuable corroboration. 20. The prosecution has examined Joginder Singh as P.W. 2, who is injured witness and Exhibit Ka-12 is his injury report. The injuries on his person are a hall mark of his presence at the scene of occurrence. In this case the occurrence took place during the broad day light, at about 07:15 a.m. and the assailant has inflicted injuries from short distance, as such, there can be no difficulty for the injured to identify the assailant, and also, there is no reason as to why the injured will falsely implicate person, who are not at the scene and ex-culpate the real assailant. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have corroborated each other and have supported the case of prosecution in material particulars. 21. The case of the prosecution finds support from the medical evidence also which states that the deceased received fire injury from close range. The injuries of the shot were also corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 6 Dr. K. P. Singh. Similarly, the injuries of P.W. 2 have also been substantiated by medical evidence. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 has contended that since the deceased Nishan Singh was involved in the business of opium along with P.W.1 and P.W. 2, which may have resulted in his murder. K. P. Singh. Similarly, the injuries of P.W. 2 have also been substantiated by medical evidence. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 has contended that since the deceased Nishan Singh was involved in the business of opium along with P.W.1 and P.W. 2, which may have resulted in his murder. Even if, we take deceased Nishan Singh to do business or smuggling of the opium, the same will not give right to the accused person to murder the deceased Nishan Singh. If this contention is a pointer towards a tiff, inter se, among P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and deceased Nishan Singh, then also, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. 23. Now, we come to the motive of the accused person in committing the present crime, P.W. 1 has referred to a criminal case between the parties regarding some maar-peet which took place one and half years before. On the day of occurrence, the date was fixed in the aforesaid case of maar-peet in the court, in which the evidence of appellant no.1 was to be recorded. The marriage of sister of the appellant no.1 Amir Singh was settled with Daljeet Singh of Mirzapur who was murdered later on, and the accused suspected that joginder Singh and Nishan Singh had murdered Daljeet Singh. In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place during the morning time when there was sufficient light and there is direct evidence of the witnesses. It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assailants, is worth of credence and can be believed than the question of motive does not carry much weight. 24. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant no.1 have no application in the present case. 25. We, thus, are of the opinion that the trial court rightly held appellant no.1 Amir Singh guilty of murder under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo for life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. respectively thereby convicting him under the said sections. 26. For all the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere, with the order of the Sessions Court and dislodge the same, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 27. 26. For all the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere, with the order of the Sessions Court and dislodge the same, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 27. The appellant no.1 Amir Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court. 28. Registrar General is directed to ensure the compliance by forwarding the copy of the judgment to District Judge, Bareilly.